Lenses

[Matt Kieley]

1 hour ago, PannySVHS said:

I wished there was a small mechanical S16 2x or 3x zoom as a carry around lens for my OG Bmpcc and Bmmcc. There are none.

Smallest one I found would be the Dzo 10-24 T2.9, which covers M43 sensor size. It still comes at a 1.1kg though. Reaching S1H territory here, though it would be the other way around, heavy camera plus a light and tiny Tokina 25-50:) The super rare S16 Cooke 3x Zoom is .. well, super rare, expensive and heavy, at around 3kg. The DZO costs around 1700 Euro. There are no cheapo C-mount alternatives afaik. What are your findings and thoughts on this?

I have a Fujinon 18-108mm 1.8 c-mount zoom that covers s16 that's very light and compact. Here it is next to my Canon 17-102 and Panasonic 12-35, and mounted on my GH5:

I don't know if it's compact enough for you, but it's the smallest c-mount zoom that covers s16 that I've owned (and I've owned quite a few).

 

[PannySVHS]

Thanks a lot for your cool answer! @Matt Kieley The Fujinon looks good size wise, 18mm and f1.8 is an attractive feature, with seemingly fine performance at f2.8. It looks smaller than the 10-24. It´s a total different range of course but pretty attractive to me in that regard for usage with S16 sensor. I imagine the Fujinon to be significantly lighter than the 2.5lbs of the DZO.

A realistic wish for a medium wide to normal focal length would have been a two times zoom starting at 14mm. But such lens was never produced unfortunately. I could speedboost the Tokina 25 50 F4 with the Bmpcc 0.58 Metabones, giving a 14.5 FOV at the short end on the Bmpcc or Bmmcc. Speedboosted Minolta 24-50 adapted to EF would demand two adapters in a row. An interesting option but not the native S16 homerun I fancy, but nevertheless. Still talking about MF lenses.🙂

[PannySVHS]

So, some photography with my beloved GX85 and the beautiful Zeiss Tevidon 25mm 1.4. It was pretty tricky doing pictures during this beautiful street fest. Small EVF, heat, loud but cool music, MF with very small focus throw, 200.000 people, dancing all over the place and the overwhelming presence of all auto smartphone computers.:) But the pleasure was all mine that day!:)

 

 

[BTM_Pix]

Sigma 16-28mm f2.8 L mount

I haven't really had much time to do anything with it but these are example grabs from 4K footage with the new to me Panasonic S5ii from the first couple of days after I picked it up.

Initial impressions are that it is fast focusing, sharp and although it is absolutely not distortion free (particularly on the wide end) but should definitely be considered by anyone with an E/L mount camera that needs a fast, constant aperture, very wide zoom.

 

 

[Matt Kieley]

Just got the TTArtisan 25mm T2 Anamorphot 1.33x. This is just a quick little test with the Sony FS5 and a Tiffen +2 diopter, shooting wide open. So far I love this tiny little anamorphic cine lens. No more janky DIY scope rigs, no more clamps, no more (occasionally) slightly misaligned footage. More than worth the $350 I paid for it. I hope they release a 50mm to pair with it.

Look how compact and tiny it is:

[PannySVHS]

That's really something. Thanks for posting. @Matt Kieley How are built and mechanics, focus throw from mid to long distance, how is sharpness for long distance shots? FS5 has a 2K mode 2048x1080? Tempting little shooter! Does it show aliasing? Fs700 has moire in 2k raw and aliasin with internal 1080p. Anyway lovely post and lens. Thank you for sharing!

[bjohn]

I used the Tokina 28-70 ATX Pro zoom (the Angénieux design, first version with poorer flare resistance) at my first-ever video shoot using a Sony A7iii a couple of weekends ago (I normally use Super 16 Blackmagic cameras but needed the Sony for its lowlight capabilities). The Tokina gave everything a nice low-contrast look that fit the mood but I was especially struck by the flares -- see these clips (which I didn't end up using, so these are straight out of camera with just some small lift, gamma, gain adjustments; the audio is camera audio but that surprised me as well).

 

[kye]

1 hour ago, bjohn said:

I used the Tokina 28-70 ATX Pro zoom (the Angénieux design, first version with poorer flare resistance) at my first-ever video shoot using a Sony A7iii a couple of weekends ago (I normally use Super 16 Blackmagic cameras but needed the Sony for its lowlight capabilities). The Tokina gave everything a nice low-contrast look that fit the mood but I was especially struck by the flares -- see these clips (which I didn't end up using, so these are straight out of camera with just some small lift, gamma, gain adjustments; the audio is camera audio but that surprised me as well).

I have consulted all the internet experts I could find and the overwhelming consensus is that these are aliens that were cloaked and only visible to the camera!

Seriously though, those are some rather distinctive internal reflections...  I don't think they're quite to my taste, but the glow from the lights is rather nice.  That lens is definitely an exceptional piece of glass.

[BTM_Pix]

Sat having a quiet afternoon pint and browsing this thread.

What a great thread it’s been and I hope we can all wake it from its semi slumber.

[kye]

In my recent deliberations / fantasies / hallucinations, I've been contemplating my recent realisations, which include:

• I don't need or want super shallow DoF (beyond F4-5.6 FF)
• I want quick AF-S but don't care about AF-C
• I want maximum flexibility, and to include tighter FOVs, which means a zoom
• I want the lens to be as small as possible

In this mindset, I discovered two interesting lenses.

The first is the Panasonic 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 zoom.  Obviously it's a 10X zoom lens, but it's a similar size as the 14-42 kit lens and the 12-35/2.8 lens!

It's also faster than the kit lens!

The second interesting thing I realised about the variable speed zoom lenses is that while they're not fixed aperture, they come pretty close to being fixed DoF.

I worked out the distance to get mid-shot (waist-up) and close-up (shoulders-up) shots for each focal length, then calculated the DoF at each distance.  We know that DoF gets shallower with longer focal lengths, but the variable zooms get slower with those longer focal lengths, and it turns out that these mostly cancel each other out.  
The 10X zoom lens only varies from 2.9-3.4m over the entire range.
(For the imperial myopicists, a meter is roughly a yard...)

On top of that, the 14-140mm lens also has pretty desirable DoFs..  
If I am taking a mid-shot then, for my work at least, it's an environmental portrait and so I'd want to include a bit of the environment in it, but getting a bit of defocus is also desirable if there is some actual depth in the scene.  3m seems about right, as getting too much shallower than that will start to make it look like the person is in front of a green-screen.  
If I am taking a close-up then it's probably a shot that is either in isolation of the environment, or the environment isn't required if edited between two other wider shots with deeper DoFs.

The other little rabbit hole I went down was looking at the FX3 / FX30 bodies and realising how small they were.  Of course, then comes the question of lenses, and then I found this little beauty - the FE 28-60mm F4-5.6...  it's tiny!

That is the GX85 with 14-42/3.5-5.6 lens, the FX3 with 28-60/4-5.6 and the GH5 with 12-35/2.8.

If I went full-frame I think I would look at the whole system and the size of the various lenses and that would be a huge determining factor.  Also, because I am not pretending to be Zack Snyder, I'd much prefer to have a modest aperture lens and combine it with a camera with spectacular low-light.

Unfortunately, my investigations showed that the L-mount system doesn't really have any compact zoom lenses at all..

That's the FP with 14-28, 16-35, and 20-60, but none of them have OIS.  Combine that with the FP lacking IBIS, and you've got no stabilisation at all.

If you add the S5 and S5iiX to get some IBIS, here's the lineup:

Of course, the elephant in the room is that the other options are smaller, better, or both..  the GX85 has a 10x zoom range and dual IS and is smaller, the FX3 has dual IS and is smaller again, the GH5 isn't smaller but has dual IS, and the S5 combos are the largest and only have IBIS.

Of course, if you take the Sony 28-60mm lens out of the picture, then the Sony system also reverts to tiny-body-huge-lens-syndrome too, but it's a serious advantage for the Sony.

Of course, if you compare the GX85 vs FX3 for walk-around setup, 10X zoom, and wildlife/sports setups, then the situation is clear:

If I was to go full-frame, it could only be Sony at the moment due to lens choices, and only because the FX3 has IBIS and they have that little 28-60mm zoom.

 

[kye]

Actually, it's even clearer for the sports/wildlife when you include the MFT 100-300mm lens, which matches the zoom range on the FX3:

I have no idea how much use the difference between 600mm and 800mm is, but if you want it, the MFT option is there.  AFAIK there are no Sony FF zooms beyond 600mm, so that's a win for the MFT too.

[homestar_kevin]

It's true, the lenses are where MFT really sticks out. 

I've gotten one of the Panasonic 14-140's recently to pair with the OG BMPC but it really is a valuable lens on any MFT camera. I got the second version which is a better rated lens. It's also really cheap if you wait and find a good deal.

[kye]

24 minutes ago, homestar_kevin said:

It's true, the lenses are where MFT really sticks out. 

I've gotten one of the Panasonic 14-140's recently to pair with the OG BMPC but it really is a valuable lens on any MFT camera. I got the second version which is a better rated lens. It's also really cheap if you wait and find a good deal.

I'm thinking I'll grab either the 12-140 or the 12-60mm 2.8-4 in time for my next trip, whenever that ends up being.  If I add it to the cost of the trip then maybe the wife won't notice!

They're similar in size, and I'm not sure how much I would miss the extra extension TBH, but a bit of extra low-light might come in handy perhaps.  Although there is a small difference in price...  

[homestar_kevin]

I'm definitely tempted by the 12-60 2.8-4 a lot and may end up snagging one if I get a gh6 kit or something. They can be pretty pricey used, but it's a very nice lens.

I wanted to super zoom of the 14-140 to try on my BMPC but have ended up using it on my g9 a bit too.

[kye]

I'm keen to get some feedback on focal lengths.

As many know, I shoot travel and want to be able to work super-quickly to get environmental shots / environmental portraits / macro / detail shots, and have narrowed down to three options:

1. GX85 + 12-35mm F2.8
2. GX85 + 12-60mm F2.8-4.0
3. GX85 + 14-140mm F3.5-5.6

The GX85 also has the 2x digital punch-in which is quite usable.

GX85 + 12-35mm F2.8
This is essentially a 24-70mm (48-140mm) with constant aperture, and is the best for low-light.  The question is if this is long enough for getting all the portrait shots.

GX85 + 12-60mm F2.8-4.0
Same as above but slower and longer.  I'm still not sure if this is long enough.

GX85 + 14-140mm F3.5-5.6
Slower but way longer.  This would be great for everything, and also zoos / safaris too, but isn't as wide at the wide end, which is only a slight difference but is still unfortunate.

I'm keen to hear what people's thoughts are in terms of the practical implications of these options in terms of what final shots these will provide to the edit.  My experience has been that the more variety of shots you can get when working a scene the better the final edit.  I'm not that bothered about the relative DoF considerations, but aperture matters for low-light of course.  I'm shooting auto-SS so am not fiddling with NDs, so the constant aperture doesn't matter in this regard.

There are obvious parallels to shooting events, weddings, sports, and other genres - keen to hear from @BTM_Pix @MrSMW and others who shoot in similar available-light / uncontrolled / run-n-gun / guerrilla situations.

[MrSMW]

I think mine and many others, is the dream ‘do it all’ lens which would have as big a range as possible and the widest constant aperture possible, but without being too big or heavy.

The closest to that ideal right now for me would be:

FF = Canon 28-70 f2 and 28-105 f2.8 plus Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8

APSC = Fuji 16-55 f2.8 and 50-140 f2.8

M4/3 = Lumix 10-25 f1.7 and 25-50 f1.7

Focal ranges are quite personal/dependant on individual needs but for me these are:

Indoor, 20-70 and outdoor 35-150.

Funnily enough, lenses with those specific focal lengths exist! For Sony and Nikon users at least…

My preferred candid focal length is 40mm. It’s just a sweet spot to me that isn’t quite as wide as 35 and not as tight as 50 can sometimes be.

But specifically for M4/3, I would struggle to see past that Lumix f1.7 pairing despite their relavent weight to the format. On a G9ii, easy choice for me. On a GX85, maybe not.

When it comes to M4/3 glass, I have always preferred the Olympus offerings. Their f1.2 ‘pro’ primes especially.

As a one lens to do it all though, I’d struggle to see past the 12-40mm f2.8, the most recent version.

Had that on the OM-1 that I had for a short time and other than say shooting sports or going on safari, for which a longer lens would be required, the FF equivalent of 24-80mm with a constant aperture of f2.8 is great for landscapes and people.

It’s the one lens that along with Fujis 16-55 (24-83 equivalent) has FF beat IMO, because the ‘traditional’ 24-70mm f2.8 is just a bit short at the long end. Unless you have a lot of megapixels and can crop, but that is another story…and personally I like to see in frame the end result without cropping.

That OM-1 paired with the 12-40mm f2.8 and the 75mm f1.7, for me would be the ultimate travel camera combo.

I could make an argument for myself for any sized sensor set up and happily shoot with any of them from M4/3 to medium format.

For my work though, I am uncomfortable (for want of a better term) with anything other than FF.

 

[kye]

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Focal ranges are quite personal/dependant on individual needs but for me these are:

Indoor, 20-70 and outdoor 35-150.

<snip>

As a one lens to do it all though, I’d struggle to see past the 12-40mm f2.8, the most recent version.

<snip>

It’s the one lens that along with Fujis 16-55 (24-83 equivalent) has FF beat IMO, because the ‘traditional’ 24-70mm f2.8 is just a bit short at the long end.

<snip>

That OM-1 paired with the 12-40mm f2.8 and the 75mm f1.7, for me would be the ultimate travel camera combo.

I'm really interested in how long the longest end needs to be.  

You've basically said that 70mm is a bit short, that 75 or 80 are better, but that you use a 35-150mm outdoors.

How do you feel about the 100-150mm range?  Do you use it a lot?  If so, what specific types of compositions and situations do you use it for?

How do you feel about the 150-200mm range?  Gathering from the above and other posts, you seem to have traded it in for other considerations, but is the focal length useful at all?  Or is it too long for what you shoot?  If you got given a weightless 28-200mm F2.8 lens then how many of your compositions would be above 150mm, and what would they be?  What about 28-300mm?

I guess what I'm looking for is feedback on the creative elements like that anything above 150mm is too compressed, or that it's only useful in certain situations, or that it feels too distant and out-of-context in an edit, or that it's not useful at all, etc.  

[MrSMW]

6 hours ago, kye said:

I'm really interested in how long the longest end needs to be.  

How long is your piece of string? 😜

6 hours ago, kye said:

You've basically said that 70mm is a bit short, that 75 or 80 are better, but that you use a 35-150mm outdoors.

 

70mm (everything in FF terms) is a bit short for me in terms of a 'portrait' focal length other than perhaps indoors when space may be tight, otherwise outdoors I prefer anything from the trad 85 (though been using a 90 recently as my 'short' telephoto) through to 150mm.

I didn't say I had a 35-150 though, just that it is my 'ideal focal range' for pretty much anything and everything outdoors.

6 hours ago, kye said:

How do you feel about the 100-150mm range?  Do you use it a lot?  If so, what specific types of compositions and situations do you use it for?

Pretty much bang on focal range for me for portraits outdoors, specifically couples at weddings, whether full length at a distance, or closer up. I like compression and will always pick a longer lens and work further away than a wider lens and work closer, if that option exists.

6 hours ago, kye said:

How do you feel about the 150-200mm range?  Gathering from the above and other posts, you seem to have traded it in for other considerations, but is the focal length useful at all?  Or is it too long for what you shoot?  If you got given a weightless 28-200mm F2.8 lens then how many of your compositions would be above 150mm, and what would they be?  What about 28-300mm?

For portraits, not a fan, - too far from the subject to communicate properly or too tight if I can. 

I am indeed in the process of moving from 70-200mm f4 over to 70-180mm f2.8 and from Lumix to Nikon/Tamron in this regard because on the lens side, it's a 1 stop faster, more shallow depth of field in a sharper, smaller (not much) and lighter (again, not by much) unit and as I have no real need for anything over 150mm other than very occasionally, the 70-180 works better for me.

A weightless 28-200mm f2.8 would be glued on providing it did not extend when zooming like an excited donkey. I prefer non-extending zoom lenses, but they are quite rare. The Lumix 70-200 f4 is so beats the Tamron 70-180 in that regard, but the Tamron extended zoom length is not too obnoxious and the other benefits outweigh this small negative.

But back to your weightless zoom otherwise, I can't see how I'd really use it any differently to having a 35-150 or a 70-180 or a 70-200, ie, my time above 150mm is limited. I would prefer NOT to have such a massive range in a single lens, because I prefer primes.

I'm at heart a prime shooter for whom zooms make more sense so rarely shoot at anything but the extreme ends.

The set up I am working towards with stills is; 20-40 but to me, it's 20 or 40, - there is nothing in between. It's simply 2 primes in one lens. I NEVER shoot anything between. Same as the 16-24 it replaced, it was always 16 or 24, end of.

My 40mm f2 is my 'everything candid' lens because for me it is the perfect focal length. It's welded on to my Zf and is essentially a fixed lens point and shoot other than in an extreme emergency when I could stick on any compatible lens.

My third and final lens is the 70-180, so it's a 70 and a 180. I could shoot it at anything in between and without wishing to sound like a complete moron, simple won't and it's a 70 (indoors) and a 70 or 180 outdoors.

So my focal length set up = 20, 40, 70, 180 and these 4 focal lengths cover all my bases.

I wouldn't cry if the 180 was 150, - I could live with that, but 180 has it's uses so is my '150' if that makes sense because that is the extreme end of that particular lens and I don't adhere to using zooms as twin lens primes to be in any way pedantic, never mind an arse, but because it's how I work and see things.

A 28-300 would have zero use to me. Yes if I went on a safari I might want something longer and if I could only take one body and one lens, I might rent something. And if I shot sports, I'd buy something, but we're talking what I would personally do or use and think, not necessarily what anyone else might.

This is why I really like Canon's 28-70 f2 and 24-105 f2.8 lenses because one is the perfect indoor lens for me (size & weight aside, but if I have to compromise anywhere, this is where I would) and the other a near perfect outdoor option...except 35-150 as in the Tamron would be better as a focal range, but I don't much care for the extending zoom and variable aperture.

If someone was to make me that 'best possible real world' zoom, I reckon I could live with a 40-120mm f2.8 with some kind of hard stop mechanism that meant it cld be used as a 40/80/120. Take my money.

I'd need something wider (such as my 20-40) but would trade the lack of that longer end for more megapixels and a bit of cropping.

6 hours ago, kye said:

I guess what I'm looking for is feedback on the creative elements like that anything above 150mm is too compressed, or that it's only useful in certain situations, or that it feels too distant and out-of-context in an edit, or that it's not useful at all, etc.  

Personally, I like compression. Obviously the longer the focal length, the more potential there is for compression depending on all the usual caveats etc, but IMO, it's not too extreme 100-200, whereas with using say wide angle lenses for portraits, is just to wacky and unnatural to my eye. In fact portraits with anything wider than 28mm is not to my taste unless it's full length.

Above 150, as above, for me, beginning to lose some contact/direction with the subject.

Conclusion.

As with all these things, opinions will vary, there is no right or wrong, only what works for you, for me or for someone else, which is often not the same thing. In fact whatever I do is rarely what anyone else, never mind the mainstream is doing. For me that is partly deliberate but mainly, 'just because'. They don't make boxes in my shape.

 

 

 

[Matt Kieley]

Been a while since I've made something that wasn't a paid gig. I made a music video for my friends' band with the TTArtisan 25mm 1.33x Anamorphic lens and the Sony ZV-E10. My first real video shot with either (the camera was delivered literally 15 minutes before I left to shoot the video). Also the first real video I've edited with Resolve (I finally quit Adobe). A lot of firsts here haha.

[kye]

1 hour ago, Matt Kieley said:

Been a while since I've made something that wasn't a paid gig. I made a music video for my friends' band with the TTArtisan 25mm 1.33x Anamorphic lens and the Sony ZV-E10. My first real video shot with either (the camera was delivered literally 15 minutes before I left to shoot the video). Also the first real video I've edited with Resolve (I finally quit Adobe). A lot of firsts here haha.

Nice work!

I like the colour grading and overall image processing, the texture is nice too.  The long shutter on the movement is cool, and getting the right level of shake to represent the experience of riding a motorcycle on modern streets was a nice touch. 🙂